söndag 14 juni 2009

Egalitarianism vs. elitism

Dear Dino

To begin with, I'm 48 years old, and I've learned that other people's stupidities are often my own stupidities too. Or rather, while others have their stupidities, I have mine. Better then to focus your life on empowering other people rather than putting them down. Or attack their bad taste, their lack of aesthetics (their becoming) rather than attacking them (their being). The Zoroastrian approach is therefore to say that people have stupid thoughts, say stupid words and do stupid things and that this is unfortunate. But not that they ARE stupid. That does not lead to any improvment or make you any happier. Neither is it particularly true.


2009/6/13 Special Kain

- Dölj citerad text -

I'm perfectly aware of the fact that Nietzscheanism is a philosophy of becoming, just like Zoroastrianism, which is one of the few philosophical religions. And I'm not making a statement about the human condition. The way you see it, it seems that there's an element of Deleuzian elitism in Zoroastrian egalitarianism? Do you think that realizing that other people's stupidity simply is contingent entails tolerance?

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Fr, 12.6.2009:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Egalitarianism vs. elitism
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Freitag, 12. Juni 2009, 23:26

It's true that Nietzsche SEEMS to put down people in their being but once you understand his philosophy of becoming (his distinct trademark from early to later days) this makes no sense. He clearly attacks people for their mindsets and their behavior, cleary not part of their being, not given qualities in any way. So my advice to you, as a Nietzschean Zoroastrian, is to think the same way. You can loathe cultural traits for all you want (as you should), just don't mistake this for being the people who behave in such a way, Had they born in a different environment, they would have been very different people et cetera. Egaliatrianism challenging people to expand themselves, that is what Zoroastrian ethics is all about.

2009/6/12 Special Kain

Nietzsche revised his philosophical concepts several times, so there are different ideals (and only few of them properly thought through or elaborated) in different books. There's one hell of a difference between "Birth of Tragedy", "Thus Spake Zarathushtra" and his last writings. What is his aristocratic ideal - shall we call them THE ARTISTOCRATS? If anything, Nietzscheanism is a philosophy of mirth and the effusive joy of playing. And he did put other people down, indeed. He was sceptical towards people, "the last people", his "overmen" etc. I remmond Michael Tanner's take on Nietzsche's philosophy.
Secondly, I didn't complain about who people are, but how they behave (towards me, my friends or simply the ones I care about). And most people don't want to be educated nor empowered in that sense, since they don't believe in intelligence. They're socially retarded cowards. It seems that intelligence is not rewarded. Or maybe I'm just having a bad day.
Any suggestions?


--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Do, 11.6.2009:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Egalitarianism vs. elitism
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Donnerstag, 11. Juni 2009, 23:31

Dear Dino

Hmmm... I believe this is a vulgar take on Nietzsche's "aristocratic ideal". Sounds more like Ayn Rand than Nietzsche.
Nietzsche is not talking about what people ARE but about how people BEHAVE.
So his ethical imperative is to educate and empower people and make them change their behavior through a positive existentialist shift of self-identity. This is identical to Zoroastrian ethics about self-identity (I am what I think, I am what I say, I am what I do, I identify with my thoughts, words and deeds). But Nietzsche, while being upset with the stupidities of this world, does not put people down. His philosophy is all about becoming and not about being, remember?


2009/6/11 Special Kain

Dear friends and fellow Zoroastrians,

According to Zarathushtra's philosophy, all people are born equal and should be treated as equal, irrespective of race, gender, age, religious faith or sexual orientation - but also irrespecitve of merit? To me Zoroastrianism seems to be egalitarian in every respect. There is no hierarchical relationship between mind and body. There is no hierarchical relationship between heaven and life down here on this shady planet. But what about Nietzschean elitism?
I have always strongly supported Nietzschean elitism, simply because most people I've met so far were boring, tediously stupid and predictably fake. Most people are semi-consciously vegetating, mistaking random biochemical "flashes" for thinking something through thoroughly (before making a DUMB choice). They like being complicated, because being complicated allegedly makes them interesting or sensitive or important .. or whatever they have tricked themselves into believing about themselves. To see them as equals was hard to swallow. Is it OK to become the most devious Machiavellian the world has ever seen? I guess so. This stupidity, ignorance and fakeness really bothers me. Aren't we supposed to defeat such moronism? Couldn't Nietzschean elitism be the appropriate response?

Ushta, Dino

2 kommentarer:

liebera sa...

What are scientists Children of the knowledge Primal seed of cosmical machine Schemes and terms from sky laboratories Investigation‘s brought by Creator‘s wit
Physical aspect and lace of metaphysic
Supreme touch urges to create
Science wit knows sense of moving
But Divine can’t be proved by theme

Dear Alex, here is a trifle example my creation and tribute to VACUUM. I’m an author of great amount of poems that are close to your ideas, especially to NETOCRACY. And I want you to be acquainted with them. Please, give me your i-mail, where I can send you in privacy (not for all other net users) I’m real fabric of different ideas and thoughts. It’s very important for me!!! I’m very responsive person! Send your answer on ‘prototype2004@gmail.com”.
I’ll be waiting for your news!

liebera sa...

ARMY OF LOVERS’ CLONES are as French résistance. French communist Michael romances with positive lad from positive French Gestapo. Local stripper Sarah is busy worker. Female Polizei is in jealousy. Unhonest Owner of Milk Factory is only one negative person. There is no blood and horrors in the story that is the result of mobilistic philosophy. Do you want Whole Clip script, Alex? And what about the Romanovs and The communists who live in complete peace or BWO, VACCUUM and ARMY OF LOVERS members as heroes of fancy tales?

PS there may be some silliness in my first commentary. I was shy that time. It’s my explanation…